Logic as Multi-Dimensional Tautological Assertions

[Skepdick]

I would not be as generous as you are, this is given the same logic they claim is true is the same logic that argue to derive truth thus logic is effectively deriving itself as nested assumptions within assumptions.

Logic is self-embedding assumptions.

It is an ourobos of the psyche.

I have no idea what you are trying to say. What are your words embedded in?

[Eodnhoj7]

I would not be as generous as you are, this is given the same logic they claim is true is the same logic that argue to derive truth thus logic is effectively deriving itself as nested assumptions within assumptions.

Logic is self-embedding assumptions.

It is an ourobos of the psyche.

I have no idea what you are trying to say. What are your words embedded in?

Distinctions, and the distinction of assumptions as assumptions from non-assumptions, thus distinction remains invariant.

Do you have any idea of what your skepticism is without the skepticism of your skepticism? Or are you just skeptical when it is convenient to your personal narrative?

[Skepdick]

Distinctions, and the distinction of assumptions as assumptions from non-assumptions, thus distinction remains invariant.

Do you have any idea of what your skepticism is without the skepticism of your skepticism? Or are you just skeptical when it is convenient to your personal narrative?

I have no idea what you are embedding those words in either.

[Eodnhoj7]

Distinctions, and the distinction of assumptions as assumptions from non-assumptions, thus distinction remains invariant.

Do you have any idea of what your skepticism is without the skepticism of your skepticism? Or are you just skeptical when it is convenient to your personal narrative?

I have no idea what you are embedding those words in either.

Apparently you do if you are using the word of embedding.

[puto]

Eodnhoj7, you know how logic works, you do not put garbage in an get garbage out. Logic has to be valid. Dogs are felines is not valid, and you know that. If the premises are true, the conclusion has to be true. Sound is valid and all true premises. Why are you arguing like that?

[Eodnhoj7]

Eodnhoj7, you know how logic works, you do not put garbage in an get garbage out. Logic has to be valid. Dogs are felines is not valid, and you know that. If the premises are true, the conclusion has to be true. Sound is valid and all true premises. Why are you arguing like that?

And point where I claimed logic is invalid or untrue? Quote specifically. Because the conclusion of the text was not logic is "invalid" or "untrue" but rather logic is "multidimensional tautological assertions". To point where, in the text in the context of the text, that the text derives what you assert.

But the text actually maps your argument precisely:

1. ((Logic is has to be valid because logic has to be valid)
Dogs are felines is not valid because dogs are felines is not valid)

2. The premises determine the conclusions and the conclusions justify the premises; a formal loop.

But to that point.

You fail to see that the identity of valid, true, etc....the things you ground logic in, we will say as a whole "X", is subject to the law of identity as X=X. X=X is an asserted tautology.

The Law of identity, the prerequisite for all of X, allows X to have an identity, otherwise if it does not....it has no identity.

So you can argue about the rules, as much as you wish, but if they are to have identity they are subject to LI, if not then they have no identity under there own foundations. LI is a tautology. The layering of every rule and variable in logic is but tautology nested within tautology.

[puto]

Eodnhoj7 are you using AI to formulate your questions and answers? Put simply, your questions and answers seem to require a specific responses. The AI from copying and pasting your response was Modus Ponens. AI wrote Lewis Carroll, "It shows the critical difference between knowing a premise and executing an inference."
AI wrote, "Just as you noted that "X=X" is a brute assertion, Carroll shows that the act of deduction itself is a dogmatic leap. We don't deduce because a premise tells us to; we deduce because if we don't, the entire enterprise of reasoning remains frozen on the starting line."
This is a general answer drawn from around the internet from AI.
Yes, I may use books and notes from Academics, but at least I am original. AI is does not even use a web, but a collection of answers that contradict each other, and I can see the difference in the questions and answers. Yet I will tell you that, "I know, I know nothing." Yes, you are a smart person.
But, using the rules of inference from "x = x" is what the logical book says.
Hurley, Patrick J. Watson, Lori. "Identity," A Concise Introduction to Logic, Cengage 13th Edition, 2018 CE., pp. 529 - 532.

[Eodnhoj7]

Eodnhoj7 are you using AI to formulate your questions and answers? Put simply, your questions and answers seem to require a specific responses. The AI from copying and pasting your response was Modus Ponens. AI wrote Lewis Carroll, "It shows the critical difference between knowing a premise and executing an inference."
AI wrote, "Just as you noted that "X=X" is a brute assertion, Carroll shows that the act of deduction itself is a dogmatic leap. We don't deduce because a premise tells us to; we deduce because if we don't, the entire enterprise of reasoning remains frozen on the starting line."
This is a general answer drawn from around the internet from AI.
Yes, I may use books and notes from Academics, but at least I am original. AI is does not even use a web, but a collection of answers that contradict each other, and I can see the difference in the questions and answers. Yet I will tell you that, "I know, I know nothing." Yes, you are a smart person.
But, using the rules of inference from "x = x" is what the logical book says.
Hurley, Patrick J. Watson, Lori. "Identity," A Concise Introduction to Logic, Cengage 13th Edition, 2018 CE., pp. 529 - 532.

I will be honest, I read a few random sentences and then realized if this is the best you can do you are arguing out of desperation....not authority. But you seem to view yourself as an authority and authority needs attention to be an authority...so here is attention:

Actually no. I formulate the texts from personal meditations, conversations, random inspiration and elaboration on prior thoughts.

Where AI is used is for stress testing and criticisms of the text. I input the text, state:

"rate quality level of text on scale of X",
"stress test to see if possible failure states occur", "intelligence level of test to understand, to write".
"Provide counter arguments and criticisms".

That is generally it. Out of 1000's of analysis' I have used a literal total of 3-4 words that AI taught me, words I never new existed (holon, multivalent, etc.)

And there is a specific reason why. Posts like yours.

You see if I want to improve a text or have a dialogue I post a text and see the responses. People like you will just ignore the text and go write to personal attacks or accusations, like your post is doing now. That is a waste of my time and when I do indulge I do so because it can be great mental exercise. Other than the clever rebutals I find you, and people like you a waste of time...

AI will argue off of analysis. People like you do not even argue, they just throw empty quotes around to hide the existential crisis the op presents for their logic.

So yes I use AI for analysis'.

No I do not have the AI write nor ask it questions, generally, outside of analysis.

And the reason is because stress testing philosophical texts against people of your nature is the equivalent of asking a toddler to stop throwing a tantrum after being proven wrong.

AI is efficient.

People like you are obsolete....and will grow more and more obsolete as time progresses. And that obsoleteness is not the fault of AI, it is the fault of people who claim knowledge based upon unexamined foundations they elevate to idols.


Did you get the attention you want? Do you feel like you matter now? I hope so.

[puto]

I read what I needed to read because that is what I thought. "Have a good day."

[Eodnhoj7]

I read what I needed to read because that is what I thought. "Have a good day."

That your, and the majority of online persona's, responses have no quality, resort to personal attacks, are quotes from ill-understood assumed idols, and that AI can provide better criticisms and rational counter-arguments? I am glad we agree for once.

You can keep your good day, judging by your responses you need it way more than me.

But please by all means, if you are so convinced the op is wrong....refute it.

[puto]

Originality that was how AI was refuted, and well an education. AI were responses taken from around the internet that should have been your first clue. AI is not coherent.

[Eodnhoj7]

Originality that was how AI was refuted, and well an education. AI were responses taken from around the internet that should have been your first clue. AI is not coherent.

You claim AI is not coherent, but looking at what you just wrote I see a projection on your part....as it is chopped up gibberish.

I see no refutation of the text using the text. What I see are groundless accusations on originality based on what? Seriously what? All I see is a diversion on your part.

You see this is why I value AI.

You, and the majority of people will just divert the subject when you become uncomfortable....or write incoherent whatever it is that you just wrote.

An AI? I say "provide analysis of the text and stress test it for contradictions". And then it provides a stress test for contradictions.

Is AI perfect? No.

Is it better than yours, and the vast majority of peoples responses? Yes, definitely.

So one more time, stay on subject. If you disagree with the op then provide a refutation of it using the text. Because for the past few turns I seen nothing but word salads.

[puto]

Subordinating clauses establish the relationship between the dependent clause and the rest of the sentence. A dependent clause cannot stand alone as a sentence because it does not expresses a complete thought. A dependent clause begins with a subordinating conjunction.

[Impenitent]

there is a Father Christmas pun in there somewhere, but I just can't find an independent Claus...

-Imp

[Eodnhoj7]

Subordinating clauses establish the relationship between the dependent clause and the rest of the sentence. A dependent clause cannot stand alone as a sentence because it does not expresses a complete thought. A dependent clause begins with a subordinating conjunction.

By that logic...

A complete thought is subject to the very same subordinating and dependent clauses that the complete thought determines as subbordinating and dependent clauses as

A complete thought of subordinating clauses requires a subordinating clause and dependent clause for the complete thought of subordinating clause to occur.

The same applies for a complete thought of dependent clauses.

The same applies for a complete thought of "complete thought".

So what you created where loops within loops....and just proved the text you argue against.